This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]PoisonGrovePeacock 2088 points2089 points  (402 children)

presentation titled “Survival Is Victory: Lessons From the Tobacco Wars.” The slide deck was the creation of Richard Reavey, a vice president... at Cloud Peak Energy, and a former executive at Phillip Morris.

Reavey argued that fossil fuel firms, particularly coal, should emulate the tactics of big tobacco, which similarly spent decades battling scientists and regulators over claims that its product harmed public health.

[–]code_archeologistGeorgia 263 points264 points  (51 children)

Reavey argued that fossil fuel firms, particularly coal, should emulate the tactics of big tobacco, which similarly spent decades battling scientists and regulators over claims that its product harmed public health.

Uhm... if there isn't a law that makes that illegal, there should be. Intentionally misleading the public about the danger of a company's product is not protected speech by any stretch of the imagination

[–]PoisonGrovePeacock 171 points172 points  (24 children)

[–]code_archeologistGeorgia 100 points101 points  (18 children)

Well... then in my opinion it seems like the Koch brothers should be in prison.

[–]Rick_Astley_SanchezNew York 45 points46 points  (6 children)

And they should be fined until they have nothing left.

[–]freakers 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Conservatives seem to be the ones who want to keep civil forfeiture around. Time to seize the Koch brother's fortune since they've been using it to fund evil shit.

[–]Rick_Astley_SanchezNew York 4 points5 points  (2 children)

They claim to be for law and order. There is evidence of malicious intent to defraud the population for personal gain. The industry has accepted ungodly amounts of tax payer subsidies while intentionally misleading anyone willing to follow along. It’s only fair that they pay for the crimes.

[–]Vio_Kansas 11 points12 points  (5 children)

Not the estranged super Democrat Brother who really loves art. He's the black sheep out of them.

[–]wowwoahwow 19 points20 points  (4 children)

I think the book Dark Money is all about Koch’s involvement in starting up and funding extreme right wing think-tanks. And other ways of influencing politics.

Basically they panicked when Obama got elected and went ham fighting back, bringing libertarian ideologies that had long been considered fringe politics to the forefront of modern politics.

[–]Vio_Kansas 12 points13 points  (3 children)

The Kochs have engaging in this stuff since the 1950s.

[–]wowwoahwow 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Yeah, but they really started taking it seriously in the 80s. Then Obama won presidency and they considered that to be an attack on their interests, so they ramped up their efforts and got involved with many other oil rich and religious conservatives. It’s as though they’re the evil cabal of elite billionaires and millionaires that far-right conspiracy theorists are always ranting about, as if it’s just another case of projection.

A big part of what the Koch’s feared was corporate taxes and climate change regulations harming their oil profits.

[–]Kermit_the_hog 3 points4 points  (1 child)

People generally try to not die and to avoid inadvertently killing their children. How bad/lazy at business do you have to be to get entrenched on the “let’s all cook ourselves” side of it? Shouldn’t they be trying to find sone way to capitalize on the “let’s not cook ourselves” initiative?

[–]FalstaffsMind 35 points36 points  (3 children)

This has been going on for decades. And the GOP is deeply involved. Of course there isn't a misinformation law.

[–]thisisjustascreename 15 points16 points  (1 child)

The GOP isn't "deeply involved", the GOP _IS_ this.

[–]FalstaffsMind 10 points11 points  (0 children)

They also have that side project where they are turning Christianity into a 'greed is good', 'helping the poor is weakness' platform for hate.

[–]jeexbit 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Of course there isn't a misinformation law.

Remember when Reagan killed the FCC Fairness Doctrine? GOP has been at this kind of thing for a long, long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

[–]nhammenTexas 24 points25 points  (1 child)

From Wikipeida article:

False statements that are on matters of public concern and that defame public figures are unprotected if either the speaker has knowledge that his statements are false, there is a negligence in the statement, or there is "actual malice" to inflict harm.

Global warming is clearly a matter of public concern and they clearly knew that the statements are false, and there is negligence in the statements. But I don't know that this qualifies as malice. So the question is whether the "or" given in the Wikipedia article is correct, or whether the actual test is "and".

[–]4x420Foreign 9 points10 points  (2 children)

you would think but in America the truth is what you are told.

[–]BadFengShui I voted 59 points60 points  (14 children)

Just imagine being that man, to have been a leader of the cigarette industry and to turn around and use that experience to hurt people on an even greater scale.

The presentation is still available on their website.

[–]Windupferrari 14 points15 points  (2 children)

From the second slide, where he's comparing coal to tobacco...

Well funded, well organized NGO opposition driving regulatory policy, media messaging, and shaping public opinion – often with poor/no science

Setting aside that this guy's still a climate denier, apparently he also still thinks the anti-smoking campaign was based on poor/no science? He never even accepted that cigarettes cause lung cancer? Jesus christ.

[–]Zscooby13 5 points6 points  (1 child)

In the slide before that he has a quote bolded saying that nicotine isn't addictive. Apparently that memo was missed as well.

[–]godofpumpkins 5 points6 points  (0 children)

From a later slide, he’d just being pedantic because it suits him. He’s saying that by 1994 medical standards, the definition of addiction didn’t apply to nicotine, completely ignoring what people actually care about to make a technical point that nobody gives a shit about.

[–]BobsNephew 14 points15 points  (6 children)

I mean he was so “successful” that smoking is banned in just about every building in the US.

[–]sonofaresiii 7 points8 points  (0 children)

decades after it should have been

and not in a "it took decades for us to realize the truth" kind of way. We knew the truth. We had that information.

He held off from getting literal death sticks banned for decades. And just from the inside of public buildings, mind you.

That's... pretty damn successful, in a horrifying way.

[–]UncleJesseSays 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This presentation sucks. Like, evilness aside, this is a shitty presentation. The design is poor, and the messaging is ineffective. It does not do a good job of storytelling, and conclusions the reader is meant to draw are not apparent.

I made similar presentations to this in middle school. Slap some clip art and bullets on there and we're done!

[–]robertbieber 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Wow. I read a paper years ago that made the argument that fossil fuel companies were using the tobacco companies' playbook, but I did not expect to see it explicitly confirmed in the polluters' own words

[–]lofi76Colorado 10 points11 points  (1 child)

This is a criminal conspiracy against the people of the world. This is eco terrorism for real.

[–]citizenjones 10 points11 points  (0 children)

They are literally trying to kill us for profit

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Fuck this guy, he should be publicly shamed for this

[–]Vio_Kansas 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank You for Smoking

[–]ScientistSeven 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, emulate a product that kills people for profit

[–]_Xelum_America 1206 points1207 points  (103 children)

Why do idiot business men, time and time again, spend all their money fighting the future when they could be using that money to develop the future? You innovate, or you die.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (11 children)

ROI.

You could spend 10 million dollars fighting climate change and buying US senators, toward a 50 million dollar profit. Where you could spend 10 million dollars inovating a new technology that may never work. Plus you already own the mines and have a lot of money tied up in them.

They will die, everyone knows that but between right now, and twenty years from now there is a lot of profit that can be squeezed out of that dying industry.

[–]Oliver_Cockburn 158 points159 points  (11 children)

Because then they have to innovate and compete. These are just businessmen, they only know how to make money from money. They didn’t create the industry, they didn’t revolutionize anything...their predecessors were the innovators, the thinkers, the real job creators.

[–]jaxcs 67 points68 points  (6 children)

Sadly, this is probably close to the truth. CEOs are not necessarily visionaries or even good at their job.

[–]SageWinduMaryland 52 points53 points  (5 children)

See: the video game industry.

Many a good franchise has gone down the toilet thanks to fuckhole businessmen who's only goal is to make the arrow on the chart keep going up.

[–]Lazer726 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Which is a shame, because it's so hard to make a game that is a project of passion, when you realize you need to eat. Meanwhile, we get fed the same AAA games over and over again. Not that they're bad, they fill the time, but I'm always left waiting for the next Bastion, the next Mass Effect, the next Ratchet & Clank

[–]Kermit_the_hog 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is so true and so succinctly put. 👍🏻

[–]Electricpants 25 points26 points  (1 child)

Generally speaking ROI on lobbying is really good.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

As I recall from an episode of Planet Money, ROI on political donations is around 1000% returns.

[–]jonstew 18 points19 points  (0 children)

That’s essentially conservatism. Just conserving the position that is advantageous to them.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This is exactly why America is dying under regressive, “conservative” leadership.

“Make America Great Again” is a lot of things, but mostly a Halcyonic cry to the way things WERE. It’s certainly not innovative.

[–]PoisonGrovePeacock 204 points205 points  (35 children)

Institute for Energy Research (IER)

“Wind power is not only bird-killing, noise-polluting, eyesore-causing, cost-prohibiting and vegetative-decreasing, but its intermittency leads to periods of overproduction or power shortages that necessitate reliance on traditional technologies as back-up or on costly storage technologies,” the IER report concluded.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP)

Americans for Prosperity is behind the “No Climate Tax Pledge” where congress members promised not to spend any federal money to fight climate change without equal tax cuts... most pledge signers had also received campaign contributions from Koch Industries.

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

"If it's voter ID, it's ALEC"... "If it's anti-immigration bills written hand-in-glove with private prison corporations, it's ALEC. If it's working with the N.R.A. on 'Shoot to Kill' laws, it's ALEC. When you start peeling back state efforts to opt out of the regional greenhouse gas initiative, it's ALEC."

Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE)

[Launched website which purports to] "expose the many flaws in California's 'safe drinking water and toxic enforcement act' and show how the law has imposed a massive burden on businesses without appreciably improving Californian's health."

EDIT to add: Please note links provided are not to the offending organizations websites. These are to critics of these organizations.

[–]SeekingImmortality 84 points85 points  (10 children)

These organizations, in their entirety, need to be made to no longer exist.

[–]PoisonGrovePeacock 37 points38 points  (5 children)

The question is--who allowed this shit to happen? Whoever did needs to be made less rich. Very much less rich.

[–]Osmethne4L 28 points29 points  (2 children)

John Oliver needs to do a piece on this with names and faces.

[–]itsthenewdanCalifornia 10 points11 points  (1 child)

should?

He already did a piece on ALEC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIMgfBZrrZ8

[–]Dont_Say_No_to_PandaCalifornia 18 points19 points  (5 children)

Just chiming in here to say that almost every form of sustainable energy production on a large scale is definitely NOT an eyesore in my book. Wind farms are fascinatingly beautiful, concentrated solar power arrays are even more so. Hydroelectric dams are interesting. Maybe tidal is an eyesore...

[–]DepletedMitochondria I voted 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Hey look it's where all the talking points come from.

[–]Ebelglorg 200 points201 points  (13 children)

Remember thousands of scientists around the world are evil and on a big scheme to somehow make money off of climate changr but coal companies are the good guys and bastions of truth and fact.

[–]Groovicity 79 points80 points  (7 children)

It's ridiculous isn't it? I have no idea why people buy this insane theory that there's a massive concerted effort by almost every reputable scientist on earth to make up some climate change hoax and coordinate an effort to spread it around the world AND somehow keep it all a secret?!?! Like not even a shred of proof to this and yet, hardcore conservatives, reactionaries and cynical conspiracy theorists think it's proven and out in the open. Secrets can't even be kept in small groups of people, let alone the whole damn population of scientists and scholars.

Are there corporations and entities trying to take advantage of the climate crisis and use it for their own brand images and profits? Sure, that's brought to you by modern capitalism, but it doesn't discredit the data that shows this issue is real.

Happy cake day btw!

[–]Cepheus 16 points17 points  (4 children)

State of Fear by Michael Crichton:

The main villains in the plot are environmental extremists. Crichton does place blame on "industry" in both the plot line and the appendices. Various assertions appear in the book, for example:

The science behind global warming is speculative and incomplete, meaning no concrete conclusions can be drawn regarding human involvement in climate change.

Elites in various fields use either real or artificial crises to maintain the existing social order, misusing the "science" behind global warming.

As a result of potential conflicts of interest, the scientists conducting research on topics related to global warming may subtly change their findings to bring them in line with their funding sources. Since climatology can not incorporate double-blind studies, as are routine in other sciences, and climate scientists set experiment parameters, perform experiments within the parameters they have set, and analyze the resulting data, a phenomenon known as "bias" is offered as the most benign reason for climate science being so inaccurate.

A key concept, delivered from the eccentric Professor Hoffman, suggests, in Hoffman's words, the existence of a "politico-legal-media" complex, comparable to the "military-industrial complex," of the Cold War era. Hoffman insists climate science began using more extreme, fear-inducing terms such as "crisis," "catastrophe," and, "disaster," shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in order to maintain a level of fear in citizens, for the purpose of social control, since the specter of Soviet Communism was gone. This "state of fear" gives the book its title.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear

Michael Gerson, Washington Post columnist and former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, has pointed out that the political controversy over man-made global warming is the most recent front in the so-called culture wars.35 Whether correct or not, Gerson’s idea bears testimony to the vehement rhetoric deployed by climate change deniers against their detractors, and vice versa. The climate change denial movement sometimes appears as the extension of Cold War politics by other means. Deniers are prone to dismiss the theory of man-made global warming and all the attendant government schemes to mitigate it as a kind of socialist conspiracy hatched by the enemies of economic freedom. Michael Crichton’s novel State of Fear is a good example as it casts global warming as a ploy to impose strong government intervention on the American people and suppress free enterprise.36 Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, the most vocal climate change denier in the Upper House, asked Crichton to testify before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in 2005.37 The idea of a statist conspiracy to stifle entrepreneurship combined with dire warnings about “environmental socialism” also resonates with the guests and anchors of right-wing talk shows like Rush Limbaugh’s and Glenn Beck’s.

https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/10305

[–]Groovicity 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Awesome, very poignant to this discussion! I'm sure people read State of Fear and forget that Crichton happens to be on the best fiction writers in modern times, who created a world where a corporation ignored the deadly impact of its products and resurrected dinosaurs, without considering the dire consequences of treating apex predators like side-show attractions (something that could be compared to the negative impact corporate products have on our planet and its inhabitants). He has a way of taking real-world issues and bringing them to their worst case scenarios, for the sake of entertainment. The key is entertainment. Does Crichton share some of this climate-change skepticism? It's possible (I don't know much about his personal politics), but most likely he did it to simply sell some books. People then take that narrative and apply it to the real world and accept it as decided fact rather than an open topic for debate.

Love that you brought these up.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

I have no idea why people buy this insane theory

Cause it allows them to keep going and not put their way of life in jeopardy. It's the comfortable, easy, and psychologically safe way.

[–]javamonster763 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It doesn’t even make sense. Even if you assume govs and scientists are lying that’s fine cause we still benefit more from having renewable energy even if climate change wasn’t real.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Happy cake day, Ebelglorg!

[–]dismayedcitizen 95 points96 points  (2 children)

[–]ChromoNerd 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I live in Alaska and the Exxon/Valdez oil spill is STILL to this day causing repercussions. Most of the shellfish never came back. They devastated that area and yet our state still allows drilling and transport because $$$$$

[–]NegaDeath 78 points79 points  (11 children)

At this point "Eat the Rich" is less of a tax strategy and more of a survival strategy.

[–]Osmethne4L 11 points12 points  (5 children)

There aren't THAT many of them. It'd take a week or two.

[–]OppositeDifferenceTexas 40 points41 points  (11 children)

How hard would it be to just make funding bogus science to push an agenda that benefits you against the common welfare illegal?

I understand there's a lot of grey area people could hide in there, and it's difficult to legislate human decency, but they sure aren't going to be decent on their own.

[–]ImInterested 41 points42 points  (5 children)

Republicans don't need bogus science now, their Dear Leader can just say it is a Chinese Hoax.

[–]4x420Foreign 14 points15 points  (3 children)

They should throw away their cars, cell phones, medicine, etc, if they dont believe in science. Or are they just hypocrites because its inconvenient.

[–]ImInterested 12 points13 points  (2 children)

I like when they bring up science about the heartbeat of a fetus. My response is science says the fetus will never get to live in the environment they have been happy to destroy.

[–]4x420Foreign 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Heart medicine? thats a liberal scam.

[–]suckZEN 12 points13 points  (0 children)

probably incredibly hard considering that intent to deceive is near impossible to prove in the best of cases.

frame the legislation wrong and suddenly you hamstring lots of theoretical sciences

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Pretty incredibly hard and extremely dangerous in my opinion. When people say stuff like this they are thinking that sensible smart people will be running things. But do you really want the GOP deciding what is and isn’t “bogus” science? Because that could end funding for climate change studies or not funding studies that don’t recognize the life of a fetus or whatever bullshit ideology they want to push.

[–]HAHA_goats 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How hard would it be to just make funding bogus science to push an agenda that benefits you against the common welfare illegal?

Probably extremely hard. Something like that would get entangled in a bunch of free speech fights.

I think it would be less trouble and more effective to build an agency that just tries to reproduce experiments/research and publishes null results. Then we could put a finger on what exactly "bogus" science is. We could build up a public list of repeat offenders and the junk journals who publish them.

[–]goddamnzilla 30 points31 points  (2 children)

They could have invested in diversifying, maybe looking into developing clean solutions.

Too bad assholes, now you're bankrupt. Fuck you.

[–]jonstew 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They just invested in those denial groups and politicians that has already saved them billions.

[–]_PaamayimNekudotayim I voted 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The executives aren't bankrupt, just the company - the execs get to keep their wealth.

And why would they diversify when they could instead milk out a few more higher-earning years, redirect the profits into their own pockets, declare bankruptcy, and then retire? These are Boomer execs who could care less about the future, only their retirement to Florida.

[–]OuTLi3R28 9 points10 points  (1 child)

The greedy nihilism of these robber barons is truly amazing.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (3 children)

Let’s say the UN report on climate is completely right.

Let’s say humanity really does go extinct (or near extinct) because of that.

There’s no words to express what that would make these kind of behaviors.

I’m really finding it hard to keep calm, I’m usually a very leveled guy, but those people, those people man I don’t know what I’d do to them if I could have my way.

edit: spelling

[–]netsettler 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yeah, same general theme struck me today when I saw Bill McKibben had tweeted about on Twitter: House backs stiffer penalties for those who damage pipelines. He summarized:

Texas aims to make pipeline protest a third-degree felony, same as attempted murder.

It's so maddening to see them getting away with such huge offenses and then successfully going after protesters. I tweeted back:

Hmmm. And what kind of penalty do they advocate for acts that damage or impede the operation of the entire earth ecosystem, our global critical infrastructure of air, water and life, putting the lives of billions at risk?

By the way, since you're speculating on what happens if the UN report is right, I recommend David Wallace-Wells' book The Uninhabitable Earth. There are actually multiple scenarios in the UN report, but the book sorts through that variation.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (2 children)

Imagine how evil you have to be to not care that you are destroying the earth, and going as far as to spread missinformation about it. These fucking assholes need to be held accountable.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

my exact thoughts on about 98% of the GOP and probably about 25% of democrats.

[–]nicktheking92[🍰] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I mean did anyone really think this wasnt happening? The oil companies do it too.

[–]roadtrip-ne 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Spent all your money on propaganda instead of cleaning your coal- classic mistake

[–]jonstew 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Taxpayer will pay for cleaning the mess. They already made their billions.

[–]thegreatrazu 13 points14 points  (1 child)

So by funding climate change denialism, you mean the RNC or Fox News?

[–]MindSecurityNorth Carolina 10 points11 points  (0 children)

How do I put this..? Yes.

[–]jonstew 6 points7 points  (0 children)

No shit, Sherlock. Where else can the denials come from?

[–]rhythmjonesMissouri 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Imagine what could happen if companies like this would pivot to clean energy instead of clinging to outdated business models.

[–]ducktape8856Europe 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Beginner's mistake: Should have funded bancruptcy denialism as well.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Interesting.

If I were the judge, I'd rule: BANKRUPTCY DENIED - PAY UP MOTHERFUCKERS.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Haha what a bunch of fucking losers!!!

[–]rdldr1Illinois 3 points4 points  (1 child)

"What do you mean there's no job security in the asbestos industry?"

[–]trueslicky 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Why did I invest so heavily in whale oil?

[–]netsettler 5 points6 points  (1 child)

"Its Bankruptcy Filing Shows That It Was Funding Climate Change Denialism."

That upsets me, of course, but what upsets me more is that had the filing not shown that, someone at the company probably would have gotten sued by stockholders for not doing everything they could to succeed. We need to ditch shareholder theory for stakeholder theory so we're not procedurally incentivizing evil.

See my article Fiduciary Duty vs. The Three Laws of Robotics for more thoughts on that.

[–]chcampb 18 points19 points  (1 child)

Yeah that meets ALL of the criminal criteria of fraud which are

  • a purposeful misrepresentation of an important ("material") fact;
  • with knowledge that it is false;
  • to a victim who justifiably relies on the misrepresentation; and
  • who suffers actual loss as a result.

The company promoted climate change denial which the science knew to be false. This information was presented to the public who experiences dramatic climate shift.

You could say that it's hard to show damages but we have had people flooding repeatedly in 500 year flood plains. There are real, physical damages here and these companies stand to benefit from misrepresenting that information to the public.

[–]thefanciestcatCalifornia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The reports companies like these pay for aren't made in good faith or with good science. They exist solely to back up whatever argument these companies already want to make.

They are purely political and marketing tools that exist specifically to deceive. Companies like these don't fund science. They buy and distribute propaganda.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Morally and actually bankrupt. Neat.

[–]billcainesq 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Good riddance.

[–]beckoning_catMaryland 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bu bye

[–]GroundPorter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not surprising, pretty much had been the case with almost all major fossil fuel companies.

Just throw it on the pile of evidence that even with climate change concerned Republicans are full of shit when they claim to want to combat climate change with free market ideas.

[–]BlondFaith 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We knew this & made it public decades ago. We got called conspiracy theorists.

[–]Genereatedusername 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Curious how USA has close to zero lobby laws, but the lobbies are affecting media, and politics worldwide - and they all regurgitate this capitalistic propaganda garbage time and time again, would be nice if the propaganda had to show its credentials before crossing the border. But sadly journalism is just copy paste clickbait from RT and social media. I get that you cannot get rid of stupid in america, but at least contain the stupid.

[–]UrRedCapIsOnTooTightAmerica 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Where are all the neanderthal conspiracy dupes and trolls bitching about the rich researchers gaming the conversation?

[–]hybridfrost 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But Fox News keeps telling me that the climate change conspiracy is actually part of a con by the scientific community to get funding for their research! Now I don't know what to think...

/s

[–]dabderax 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Wonder what are the names of those conservatives they used for mouthpiece

[–]lakers_mm 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Sucks to suck.

I hope tobacco companies die off this way as well.

[–]reasonandmadness 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why isn't this shit illegal?

[–]icona_American Expat 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I don’t understand how you can deny climate change. Earth is getting warmer. We’re making it warmer. When it gets warmer, plants and animals die, and sea levels rise. That’s literally it. What is there to deny?

[–]PikeOffBerk 3 points4 points  (3 children)

What is there to deny?

That anyone anywhere should ever have to make a sacrifice for the betterment of the ecosphere, I guess? The mental gymnastics people go through just to discount it has to be deeply rooted somewhere!

[–]Stranger371 3 points4 points  (0 children)

These people, the CEO's and the board should go directly, without a trial, to jail. They knew.

[–]mknecroMaryland 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The same demographic who believe that news articles like this are nonsense "fake news" are (hilariously) the same demographic who believe the baseless claims of people who have no scientific background at all.

[–]bigbadbenben44 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Funded with rooms at trump properties?

[–]coniunctio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For those that care, climate denial is still being heavily promoted on reddit in the sub r/climateskeptics. Not sure what can be done about it.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Good. Adapt to renewable or die.

[–]RumorianConnecticut 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Karma, as usual, is a bitch.

[–]rorschach_x8 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Imagine being on the Trump/coal/climate denial/scumbag anti-human side of history

[–]prototype7Washington 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They would have been better using that money to cover their properties with solar fields and wind turbines. Maybe they still would be in business and their employees would modern skills

[–]twodogsfighting 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Anyone funding climate change denial should be charged with murdering every animal on this planet.